Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
we DO keep a tally of each time a mobile site is reported. the idea being hat if we get a remove request and no one has reported it for a considerable time then it has a higher chance of being removed.
How would the numbers look if you moved everything out of the verified mobiles that hadn't been reported for, say, 1 year, into the pmobiles file? You would then get more current data in the verified mobiles file, and those that wanted could use the pmobiles file and still get the same as now.
Then you could start dropping sites altogether that hadn't been reported for over 2 years.
But I suppose that only works if users report every sighting of a mobile, on the database or not, to keep the data updated. I know you've requested that, but how many reports are you actually getting?
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject:
bmuskett wrote:
How would the numbers look if you moved everything out of the verified mobiles that hadn't been reported for, say, 1 year, into the pmobiles file? You would then get more current data in the verified mobiles file, and those that wanted could use the pmobiles file and still get the same as now.
unfortunately that would involve manually checking over 5000 database entries ;)
Quote:
But I suppose that only works if users report every sighting of a mobile, on the database or not, to keep the data updated. I know you've requested that, but how many reports are you actually getting?
not as many as i'd expected! there's a core of about 5 or 6 that will regularly update them but in general probably not near enough to carry something out like you suggested!
Joined: Jun 15, 2004 Posts: 297 Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:17 am Post subject:
MaFt wrote
Quote:
not as many as i'd expected! there's a core of about 5 or 6 that will regularly update them but in general probably not near enough to carry something out like you suggested!
Only 5 or 6 updating it? With so few and with so many records thta confirms my concerns. The data is becoming more 'corrupt' each day. I suspect the number that havent been reported or reconfirmed for many years is huge.
I find it difficult to capture data on the move. I think we all understand that it can take an effort to remember to send in a manual report later. On the daily route that I travel, I have NO mobile sites either on the download or in reality, place, maybe i'm just fortunate? I only occassionally do longer journeys so i'ts only then that mobile data will become a consideration. As a subscriber I'm after accurate data that doesnt require too much interaction. But resubmitting a mobile wouldnt be too much of an issue surely? Have them reported via the web site.
I work with databases, and if you guys at PGPSW are 'manually' checking records as MaFt suggests, you are going about in the wrong way! Even a simple spreadsheet and filter would give that info, no need to be a SQL expert! Surely you record when they were reported and who reported them?
BTW, just remembered a mobile site that I've posted that isnt on the plot so far. Cant remember if i'd reported it before though...
Darren said
Quote:
there is a risk that we will miss some as a result if we begin removing 'expired' mobile camera sites.
SO....don't delete them, move then to sub categories based on last reported, so WE can decide which we use. That is a simple task and could be done now! We already use categorised fixed speed cameras why not these? The debate goes on... _________________ Fraserp TomTom 1000
GPSmap 60CSx
SatMap
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:12 am Post subject:
Fraserp wrote:
Quote:
there is a risk that we will miss some as a result if we begin removing 'expired' mobile camera sites.
SO....don't delete them, move then to sub categories based on last reported, so WE can decide which we use. That is a simple task and could be done now! We already use categorised fixed speed cameras why not these? The debate goes on...
We don't want ever more categories, pMobiles was one too many! _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:28 am Post subject:
I'm not quite sure what Fraserp is after here, so I'll pass a few comments on the post.
"5 or 6 regularly updating". I'm not sure if I come into that category - I travel a zillion miles a year and make every effort to send in updates whenever possible - I'll be reporting Mobiles 7029 and 14114 again some time shortly, BUT it'll perhaps be the 5th or 6th time I've reported them - maybe that's what he means, some daft old bloke reporting the same mobile cameras every time he goes down the M4!
I don't do a daily route - whitevanning wherever the call takes me. I have recently changed the warning distances for mobiles in a deliberate move to get more advance warning to be able to pay more attention in case they are "personned" by a van. I too am after accurate data (it's more important for me with different destinations every day than folk on a regular daily route) and in our case, the Dbase is what comes forward from members, so whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'll bang the drum to get more members to do more reporting.
Whilst I claim to have once been rather expert with Lotus 123, my experience of DBs of this nature leads me to slightly worry about "non manual" filters and stuff - my early experience had data input using field separators and we got into an incredible mess when some of the data input had alpha characters the same as field separators, so data went into the wrong fields - we had a six month long field day (b, b, boom, boom!!) trying to get our stuff back to life. So you worry me suggesting a simple filter application! I'm not getting at you and the quality of this database leads me to suppose the guys dealing with it are a helluva lot more competent than those who gave me six months of 7 day weeks. But I'd still worry if I heard they were doing a wholesale computerised filter.
But I refer back to the original post and the subject, "proliferation of mobiles". It was a source of great regret to me that pgpsw gave in to the disproportionate hue and cry by allowing the pMobiles download - that is the culprit here. It would have been far better to run a continuous, sustained and very prominent campaign to get members to report mobiles every time they see them - the present request to do so is mild and inconspicuous. When I take over the world, the first thing I'll do is change the camera download page to having an enormous banner saying "Have you seen a camera this month?" and stuff like that in neon headlights 10 foot tall. I wouldn't take anything out or transfer it until such a campaign started getting reports flooding in - then I'd be comfortable starting the mobiles pretty much from scratch. I just knew the pMobile download would be counter-productive - if they've got a pmobile site they don't need to report it in. _________________ Dennis
We don't want ever more categories, pMobiles was one too many!
I think I got this right? What we all want is a seperation of recently used mobile sites, say one year old. Old but regular sites. Unverified and removed sites.
But we want it shown on one database.
Current GPS technology won't allow us to use this, so an altenative is required.
Question. Does the unofficial version of the database have dates of reportage and can we use them?
Question. If one files was employed again where the sites were seperated by name? e.g Mob, Vmob, Pmob. (then you could delete, seperate, rename easily)
This could be good for PGPSW as they can then boast the accuracy of the mobile database.
Oh! And before I get jumped how much work is required to get it there and maintain it afterward? _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
not as many as i'd expected! there's a core of about 5 or 6 that will regularly update
With so few updating and all those entry's, what do they do all day, travel around looking to register everything that looks like it has glass on the front? _________________ TomTom Go 60
Garmin Nüvi 660, Firmware v4.90
Drive-Smart GPS with Loader v1.4.16
HTC Advantage X7500 MS 6.1 Tchart Speed Sentry
Satmap Active 10, Software v1.16
Fuzion 32 HUD Bluetooth GPS receiver
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:30 am Post subject:
FraserP
when i said 5 or 6 that consistently report that a camera has been 'seen again' i mean these are people that do it a lot - i won't name them as i don't think that's the right thing to do, however, this does not mean they are the only ones. we get about 100 new submissions every day - a good proportion of these are mobile sites either new, or new sitings of.
considering i only asked people to start re-reporting mobile sites a few months ago we cannot make any statements as to how many camera sites haven't been reported as up until that request if it was in the database people didn't submit it.
regarding capturing data on the move, have you tried using poi-capture? simply install it on your tomtom and a few button presses captures a location that can then be submitted via the submissions page.
as for the database, we do not manually check the database. i was trying to explain the situation without bogging people down with technical info. the 'last reported' field is just a text input where i make a note of the date and submitter and any other relevant info - i.e. not just a date. we have over 100 fields spread over 5 tables. when i added the 'last reported' field it was an extra note for me to use so when we got a remove request saying a site never gets used i can quickly see the last time it was reported and use that to help decide the outcome of the remove request. i never intended for it to be used to automate a batch removal/change process and hence it was not designed to be used like that - i.e. by searching just for a date as the field contains extra information. mass removal of sites that haven't been re-reported is asking for trouble! the 'last reported' field is a guide only and for me only (or anyone else managing the database) and it will never be used to automate removal of sites. you didn't need to know any of that but after belittling our database i thought i'd let you know that we DO know how to create and maintain a huge database with over 120,000 rows.
as for adding yet another category of mobiles then i'm afraid that it's a 'no' - we have enough already and i personally can't see how it would help the average user.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:40 am Post subject:
GJF wrote:
MaFt wrote:
Quote:
not as many as i'd expected! there's a core of about 5 or 6 that will regularly update
With so few updating and all those entry's, what do they do all day, travel around looking to register everything that looks like it has glass on the front?
regularly UPDATE - 'update' is the key here. i meant there are a bunh of regulars who i know re-report any new sitings of existing mobile sites. not the new sites, the existing ones - that's what we were talking about!
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
regularly UPDATE - 'update' is the key here. i meant there are a bunh of regulars who i know re-report any new sitings of existing mobile sites. not the new sites, the existing ones - that's what we were talking about!
Me, Me, Me. I regularly report Mobiles 7029 and 14114!! You can tell them it's me, I don't mind being famous. Anybody want my autograph? Can I sell my story for £zillions?
Right, must go, just got another call to go off down the M4!! _________________ Dennis
as for adding yet another category of mobiles then i'm afraid that it's a 'no' - we have enough already and i personally can't see how it would help the average user.
It is a suggestion that technology does not have an obvious awnser to yet and shouldn't be readily discounted?
The main question still remains! HOW?
Whilst you do not remove mobile cameras untill someone notices something untoward, you will never be able to say it is accurate. And because this is why everyone has a gripe with both databases it is important. I know whatever is decided I will continue to try and update existing camera locations, fixed or mobile, I doubt there are enough interested parties to make a sizable difference to the database.
What policy will PGPSW take to apply some element of self Maintainance of the Mobile database and not rely soley on the members?
There have been 1500 veiws of this post of which half are probably the posters return visits, and there are no doubt some who have yet to see the post. This in comparison with the thousends of miles of road in the uk and you get the picture.
There are not enough people to make these corrections. _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
But I refer back to the original post and the subject, "proliferation of mobiles". It was a source of great regret to me that pgpsw gave in to the disproportionate hue and cry by allowing the pMobiles download - that is the culprit here.
I haven't a clue what you're on about here, why are the pmobiles to blame? Did you read the original post and my earlier post about the numbers?
weelogic wrote:
However, in recent months I have become increasingly frustrated at the number of new mobile "locations" that are popping up, and in the latest version it has descended into farce.
Now I must admit that I when I read back weelogic doesn't say anywhere whether or not he's using the pmobiles file, but I assumed he was complaining about verified mobiles. Even if he is including pmobiles I could only see 2 in that area.
So why is the pmobiles download to blame? I can only see it helping.
If you're not using the pmobiles file then you're getting less warnings than before they were taken out, so less cause for complaint. (Although you could say that it might have been better to leave them in to cause complaints and raise the profile of the issue among more users, as this thread has.)
But if you do use the pmobiles file, then as well as getting notification of new mobile sites before they are verified, you can see the sites that need verification and comment on them, pro or con, and so improve the accuracy of the database that way.
DennisN wrote:
It would have been far better to run a continuous, sustained and very prominent campaign to get members to report mobiles every time they see them - the present request to do so is mild and inconspicuous.
I agree completely with you there, and I see MaFt has made another posting about that today.
DennisN wrote:
I just knew the pMobile download would be counter-productive - if they've got a pmobile site they don't need to report it in.
But here you lose me again. I suppose you're saying that pmobile users just accept the warnings, and if they see a real mobile at a pmobile site, don't report it further. Why should they do that? That was one of the reasons that I, and others, wanted the file - so that we could comment on what was in there, as well as get the warnings.
DennisN wrote:
I too am after accurate data (it's more important for me with different destinations every day than folk on a regular daily route) and in our case, the Dbase is what comes forward from members, so whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'll bang the drum to get more members to do more reporting.
Surely if you are so interested in the accuracy of the database then you should be using the pmobiles and sending in your opinions of any sites that you see, moving up the good ones, and weeding out the bad.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject:
mostdom wrote:
The main question still remains! HOW?
Whilst you do not remove mobile cameras untill someone notices something untoward, you will never be able to say it is accurate. And because this is why everyone has a gripe with both databases it is important. I know whatever is decided I will continue to try and update existing camera locations, fixed or mobile, I doubt there are enough interested parties to make a sizable difference to the database.
That's my policy too, and I think PGPSW should continue encouraging that among users. Maybe a plug in the announcement of each new release of the database, and on the download page for those who don't read the posting but just go straight for the download when they get the prompt. Or some kind of pre-download page that you have to go through before you get to the download.
mostdom wrote:
What policy will PGPSW take to apply some element of self Maintainance of the Mobile database and not rely soley on the members?
They do have verifiers (24 is it?), who go out and check sites. A recruitment drive?
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
I regularly report Mobiles 7029 and 14114!! You can tell them it's me, I don't mind being famous. Anybody want my autograph? Can I sell my story for £zillions?
